Escalating Israeli-Palestinian conflict did not alter how identification modes predict group guilt

Evidence

We examined the relationships between attachment, glorification, exonerating cognitions, and guilt separately in the two samples with hierarchical regressions. Results were very consistent across the two samples. Thus, the two modes of identification were similarly related to exonerating cognitions and to group-based guilt despite the changes in sociopolitical context. — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 80

Categorization

• QUESTION: This is directly relevant to whether historical persecution vs. threat changes trajectories — here a real conflict escalation left the attachment/glorification relationships to guilt unchanged, which bears on the reader’s tipping-point question.
• XREF: connects to: Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens — Torsten Masson and Markus Barth, The identification-guilt paradox…, 71; Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 23; Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 1170 (+6 more)

Related

• Conflict escalation lowers group-based guilt and raises exonerating cognitions over time. (similarity 0.93)
• Escalating conflict reduces in-group acknowledgment of past wrongdoings (similarity 0.90)
• Studies conflict on whether high identification predicts more or less guilt (similarity 0.90)
• Attachment to the in-group and glorification predict opposite reactions to one’s group’s moral violations. (similarity 0.87)
• Guilt grows monotonically harder to feel as identification strengthens (similarity 0.87)
• Ingroup identification only predicts bias under specific moderating conditions (similarity 0.85)
• Conflict escalation alters even retrospective moral judgments of past in-group harms. (similarity 0.84)
• Group identification can simultaneously raise and lower group-based guilt. (similarity 0.83)
• Glorification predicts exonerating cognitions that blunt group-based guilt. (similarity 0.82)
• Groups respond in real time to current rather than historical in-group wrongdoings (similarity 0.82)
• Critical attachment primes stronger group-based guilt than conventional attachment. (similarity 0.82)
• Controlling for glorification reveals attachment’s true link to group guilt. (similarity 0.82)
• In-group identification relates to collective guilt in a non-linear fashion. (similarity 0.82)
• Attachment to the in-group predicts guilt while glorification predicts defensiveness (similarity 0.82)
• Group identification can both enable and block feelings of group-based guilt (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Conflict escalation lowers group-based guilt and raises exonerating cognitions over time. #contradicts (0.95) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 87
• Strongest ingroup identifiers are least likely to feel collective guilt #corroborates (0.85) — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt, 1170
• Escalating conflict reduces in-group acknowledgment of past wrongdoings #contradicts (0.85) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 130
• Stronger group identification correlates near zero with ingroup bias #corroborates (0.85) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 441
• Conflict escalation alters even retrospective moral judgments of past in-group harms. #contradicts (0.80) — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt, 86
• Ingroup identification only predicts bias under specific moderating conditions #corroborates (0.80) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 448